Official Report 1071KB pdf
The next item of business is First Minister’s question time.
Taxation
One of Scotland’s most successful businessmen, Sir Tom Hunter, responded to Labour’s tax rises last week by saying:
“There is no economy in the world that has ever taxed its way to economic growth”.
Does John Swinney know of any examples?
What I know is that we have to be prepared to invest in economic growth. I have set out my firm view that investing in economic growth means investing in the infrastructure and the capacity of our country and investing in the public services on which a great deal of economic foundations are founded. I also understand the importance of creating, encouraging and stimulating private economic activity in our economy, which is why one of the four priorities of my Government is supporting and nurturing economic growth.
John Swinney surely knows that high tax kills growth and costs jobs but, in his topsy-turvy world, hitting hard-working Scots with high taxes will somehow boost our struggling economy. Even his own MSPs are worried. Today, the Scottish National Party-led Finance and Public Administration Committee has said in a report that it is
“deeply concerned about the Scottish Government’s ... approach”.
In the report, Professor David Heald of the University of Glasgow called elements of Scotland’s income tax rates “ludicrous”. The report quoted the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce as saying:
“the tax burden on businesses is extremely high; this penalises success”
and
“reduces profitability”.
Does John Swinney accept that its concerns are valid?
Anyone who looks at my track record knows that I engage closely with the business community on all these questions. I also understand that there is a vibrant debate about the economic choices that are to be made. From Russell Findlay’s questioning, I suspect that he is on one side of that argument and that I am on the other, because I believe in using investment to stimulate growth. We have had an example over the past 14 years of what the constraining of investment does—it reduces life chances, opportunity and growth. That has been an unmitigated disaster for the country, and that is the record of the Conservative Party.
John Swinney talks about investment stimulating growth, but the point is that there has been no return on that so-called investment by the Government. The independent Fraser of Allander Institute found that only 9 per cent of firms in Scotland say that the SNP Government understands the business environment.
Over the past three years, SNP ministers have received more than £600 million from the United Kingdom Government to provide rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, but struggling Scottish businesses have barely received one tenth of that figure. Michael Bergson of the Buck’s Bar group has told us that the SNP’s failure to pass on rates relief was a “disgrace”. Stephen Montgomery of the Scottish Hospitality Group has said that,
“at the very minimum, tax relief should be passed on in full and with no cap”.
Scottish businesses urgently need more help, so will John Swinney do the right thing?
I will make a couple of points at the outset in responding to Mr Findlay’s latest question. First, he says that there is no evidence of growth. Scotland’s gross domestic product per capita has grown faster than the United Kingdom’s since 2007—if we account for population growth since 2007, GDP per person has grown by 10.5 per cent in Scotland, compared with 6.3 per cent at the UK level. I remind Parliament, so that it has the complete information, that 2007 was the moment when the Scottish Government was elected. Therefore, in this Government’s lifespan, we have delivered more growth per head than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Russell Findlay rose—
The second point—we are on helpful clarifications here, Presiding Officer, if you will forgive me—is that most of the taxation that is imposed on business is not determined by this Parliament; most of it is determined by the United Kingdom Parliament. With regard to business rates, we have the most comprehensive business relief scheme for small businesses. That means, in our estimations, that about 50 per cent of the hospitality sector pays absolutely no business rates whatsoever in Scotland. That is where we take our action to support the sector in Scotland.
I apologise for standing up too soon. I thought that John Swinney had finished, but he was still going.
When faced with the reality of what businesses are saying, John Swinney reaches for his big book of selective statistics. However, everyone—business owners, hospitality groups, chambers of commerce, academics, the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee and even SNP back benchers—is pleading for the SNP to change direction.
Scotland’s tax system needs to change. Higher taxes are stopping businesses growing and preventing them from creating jobs, which would generate more money for public services. Scotland’s businesses need more than rates relief—they need a game-changing tax cut. In this year’s budget, will John Swinney start to repair some of the damage that has been inflicted by the SNP?
I have already put on the record the fact that the Government has delivered more growth per head in Scotland than the United Kingdom has done.
On the tax changes that the Government has presided over, people such as Mr Findlay told us that there would be an exodus of people from Scotland because of the tax situation. However, we have seen a net in-migration to Scotland over the period of those tax changes being in place.
Of course, there is a budget to be gone through, and the budget cannot pass in Parliament without the agreement of members beyond those of the Government party, because we do not command a majority in Parliament. Led by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, discussions are under way to construct agreement in Parliament about what the budget will look like.
The implications of Mr Findlay’s point on cutting taxes are that we will have to cut public expenditure, too. If people are going to come forward with substantive propositions in the dialogue with the finance secretary, they should at least have the democratic responsibility to set out not only where the tax cuts will come but where the spending cuts will come. If we dabble with the financial madness of the Conservative Party that we got under Liz Truss, we all know where that will end up.
National Health Service
Statistics obtained by Scottish Labour show that almost 9,000 Scots waited more than 24 hours in accident and emergency up to the end of September this year—that is a full day waiting for treatment. That is more than the entire number that waited a full day in 2023 and, unbelievably, almost 200 Scots waited more than two days in A and E.
That is just a snapshot of the crisis in our NHS. Week after week, I come to the chamber and expose how the Scottish National Party is failing staff and patients in our NHS; week after week, John Swinney plays it down and tries to explain away the deadly crisis on his watch. Will he finally admit that the SNP cannot be trusted with our NHS and that we need a new direction?
No. We do not need a new direction; we need to sustain the investment that the Government has been making in the national health service for the past 17 years. The Government has gone beyond the investment that has comparatively been undertaken by the Barnett consequentials from the United Kingdom Government. The Government has been prepared to invest in the NHS in excess of the Barnett consequentials on health, because we have taken the tough decisions to do so.
I acknowledge that there are challenges in the NHS—I do so on every occasion that members come forward with their points—and I apologise to any individual who waits longer than they should do. However, the Government is focused on ensuring that we deliver an effective health service that meets the needs of people in Scotland, and that is the direction that we will follow.
Week after week, John Swinney comes to the Parliament and apologises for the performance of his Government. He says that there is no need for a new direction, but the reality is that John Swinney and the SNP have no meaningful plan, no strategy and no ideas to save our NHS. The situation has actually got worse since he became First Minister: by September, more people had waited 24 hours in A and E than did in the entirety of last year.
Scots cannot continue to pay the price of SNP incompetence. We do need a change of direction. As part of Labour’s transformative budget, the Scottish Government will receive an additional £789 million for our NHS this year and an additional £1.72 billion for it next year. However, that vital new money cannot be wasted by continued SNP financial mismanagement and incompetence. Put simply, more of the same will not cut it. Will John Swinney commit to using that money to tackle long waits and to reform our NHS so that it is fit for the future?
In the past 12 months, there has been an increase in the number of operations performed in the NHS. In the 12 months to June 2024, outpatient activity increased over the previous 12 months. There have been more than 1.5 million attendances at A and E departments, and, on this Government’s watch, there has been an 82 per cent increase in the A and E consultant headcount, compared with 10 years ago. I say to Mr Sarwar that we are investing, and that we are fully aware of the challenges that we face and are addressing them.
Mr Sarwar went on to talk about the budget. From what I said last week, he knows that I welcome the investment that has been made in public expenditure as a consequence of the budget, and I give him the absolute assurance that that will be invested in strengthening, reforming and improving the national health service. However, there is one challenge in all of that: that expenditure will be able to be deployed only if there is a parliamentary majority in favour of supporting our budget. So, Mr Sarwar is not an innocent bystander on that question. If Mr Sarwar wants the money to be spent, he should vote for the budget.
New money is one thing; what is done with that money to change the direction of our country is another, and I note that there are actually 50,000 fewer planned operations compared with pre-pandemic levels.
Scottish Labour has a plan to fix the NHS and make it fit for the future by cutting bureaucracy, investing in new technology, prioritising wraparound community care and creating dedicated teams to clear the backlogs. However, all we have from this SNP Government is continued denial and a hunt for excuses.
On John Swinney’s watch, one in six Scots is stuck on an NHS waiting list, delayed discharge rates are sky high, cancer treatment standard targets are missed again and again, families are being forced to take out loans or remortgage their homes to pay for private treatment, and NHS staff are feeling burnt out and let down. That is the deadly legacy of the SNP’s incompetence. The Scottish Government has the money and it has the powers, and it has now run out of excuses. Will John Swinney tell the people of Scotland when they will finally have an NHS that is there when they need it, or do we need to wait for a change of Government in 2026 for us to get our NHS back?
I do not think that Mr Sarwar listened to my second answer, which was quite clear. I set out the strengthened measures that we have taken to expand the capacity of the national health service—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
I acknowledge the challenges that we face in the NHS, and I welcome the fact that we have the opportunity for further investment as a result of the United Kingdom budget. I do not know why Mr Sarwar cannot just embrace my positive and constructive contribution to the discussion.
If Mr Sarwar wants to have an engaged conversation about how we can deliver investment to the NHS, I suggest that he takes seriously the offer from the Government to engage around the budget process. I come back to my fundamental point: it is all very well getting the allocations of money from the UK Government, but that money cannot be spent unless this Parliament approves a budget, and that places a responsibility on Mr Sarwar and the Labour Party.
US Election (Scottish Government Response)
Yesterday, the First Minister offered congratulations to the convicted felon Donald Trump on his re-election. Writing officially on behalf of the Scottish Government, he said that he is sure that Scotland’s cultural and social ties with the US will “flourish” during the presidency of a misogynist, a climate-change denier, a fraudster, a conspiracy monger, a racist and a far-right politician who tried to overturn an election result both covertly and by inciting violence. Words fail me.
What social and culture ties does the First Minister really think will benefit from a relationship with such a man? More importantly, what has the First Minister done so far to reach out to the marginalised and vulnerable people whose lives are most directly threatened by a second Trump term?
I have a duty as the First Minister of Scotland to engage with other Governments and to represent the people of Scotland in that process. As part of that duty, I wrote the letter in question that Mr Harvie cites.
There are deep cultural, social and economic ties between Scotland and the United States of America, and I think that they are important. They are important for employment in our economy, for the cultural expression of our country and for the way in which we are able to pursue our objectives.
Although there are very big differences in expression, priority and way of life between me and Donald Trump—clearly, because of what I said before the presidential election—I cannot deny the existence of links between Scotland and the United States, and, regardless of the presidential choice in the United States, I want to maintain good relationships between Scotland and the United States.
Mr Harvie knows me well enough to know that the concerns of people who feel marginalised in our society and who feel under threat are concerns that I wrestle with every single day as First Minister. I stood here and pledged to be the First Minister of all of Scotland, and that is entirely what I intend to do.
Big differences of priority—that sounds like extraordinary complacency at a time of incredible danger for the world. The re-election of Trump is particularly dangerous for climate policy, as he has peddled climate conspiracy theories for many years.
Such threats exist in Scotland, too. The First Minister’s Government is on the verge of making a decision on a new fossil fuel power station at Peterhead. Last week, researchers at Carbon Tracker revealed that the emissions from the power station could be five times worse than the companies that would profit from it have admitted. The First Minister has the power to demand a new environmental impact assessment to ensure that those companies come clean about the pollution that their scheme would cause. Will he do so, and does he accept that, until he does, ministers could be breaking the law if they sign off that reckless fossil fuel development?
The application at Peterhead is live, and I would be breaching the ministerial code if I were to make any detailed comments about it. There will be processes of scrutiny to be undertaken, which ministers will undertake, on the basis of the information. Of course, all decisions of the Government can be subject to legal challenge because of the Parliament’s constitution.
The Government takes incredibly seriously our obligations on tackling climate change. On Tuesday, the acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy steered through the Parliament the final stage of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, and the Government is considering all the issues in relation to the tackling of climate change in the budget priorities that we take forward. I assure Mr Harvie of our absolute determination to do so. No change of Government in the United States is going to change this Government’s attitude about the imperative of addressing the climate emergency.
Online Misinformation and Disinformation
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that young people are equipped with the skills to recognise online misinformation and disinformation. (S6F-03493)
Keeping young people safe online is of paramount importance to the Scottish Government, and prevention is key. Since 2020, we have invested more than £400,000 in supporting young people to navigate online spaces and use screen time in a safe way and in ensuring that parents and carers have the information to guide young people and recognise risks.
On 9 August, I wrote to social media companies X, Meta and TikTok, asking them specifically how they are combating the spread of misinformation and what steps are being taken to address racist and hateful speech across platforms.
Although regulation of the internet remains a reserved matter, we have successfully engaged with the United Kingdom Government on its Online Safety Act 2023 to strengthen protections for young people.
In the public gallery, we are joined by teachers and pupils of Banff academy, who have been drafting their very own parliamentary bill to tackle misinformation and disinformation. Will the First Minister join me in welcoming them and congratulating them on their engagement with our democracy? Will he outline how young people are being included in the decision-making process for policies that affect the online space and digital landscape?
I am delighted to welcome the pupils of Banff academy to the Parliament. I look forward to seeing their bill, as tackling misinformation is an issue that is challenging societies across the world. I am pleased that those young people recognise that important principle and that they are taking action that shows that they are keen to engage in our democratic processes.
It is essential that we understand the impact that online harm, such as that caused by misinformation, has on our young people. We provide funding for and work with a range of organisations, including Barnardo’s and NSPCC’s Childline, which support children and help us to develop policies and design services that safeguard young people and provide the right support when they need it. In addition, we will continue to engage with the United Kingdom Government and Ofcom on the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023 to help to keep children and young people safe online.
A9 Dualling (Funding)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the concerns expressed by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee regarding funding to complete the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness by the new target date of 2035. (S6F-03503)
I welcome the report on the committee’s inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has already made it clear that we will carefully consider and respond to its recommendations.
The Government remains fully committed to progressing A9 dualling in line with the delivery plan that was announced in December 2023. We have made good early progress through the procurement of the Tay crossing to Ballinluig project, which began in May 2024, and the construction contract for the Tomatin to Moy project, which was awarded in July 2024.
I am sure that the First Minister will want to join me in paying tribute to the committee members for their work on the report and to the petitioner, Laura Hansler, for assiduously pursuing the project to dual the A9, which is of vital importance to people in Perthshire, in the Highlands and across Scotland.
As the committee noted, the project should have been completed by 2025. That broken promise means that, tragically, more lives will be lost every year from now on. Given that the committee has expressed its concern about the fact that
“there is already an anticipated delay”
in progressing the Tomatin to Moy section, how can we have confidence that the new target date of 2035 will be met? Does the First Minister agree with the committee that, in order to provide appropriate parliamentary oversight, a dedicated committee should be established, with the sole remit of ensuring that this vital project is completed on time?
That last issue is not a matter for me; the Parliament decides on what committees it has. Once the Parliament has decided on that, ministers will engage fully and substantively. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport already reports regularly to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. If the Parliament chooses to change the committee arrangements, the Government will respond accordingly, and we will engage with all parliamentary scrutiny, as is our duty.
I pay tribute to the campaigners who have argued on the issue. I have been a strong supporter of A9 dualling for all my parliamentary life, and we have made substantial progress with the dualling of the Kincraig to Dalraddy stretch, the Luncarty to Pass of Birnam stretch and the improvements at the Ballinluig junction in my constituency. In addition, of course, the next steps are being taken on the Moy to Tomatin section. I am delighted that construction work will start there soon.
I give the Parliament an assurance that the Government is absolutely determined to ensure that the project progresses.
In paragraph 138 of its inquiry report, the committee stated—based on evidence from Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government—that, since the promise was made to dual the A9 by 2025, transport projects in central and southern Scotland have been prioritised. Given that fact, will the First Minister be prepared to come up to the Highlands and meet campaigners and people on the ground to convince them that his word will hold true this time, when the Government’s word has not held true in the past?
Such contributions do not help with the reasoned deliberation of policy in the Parliament. As I pointed out last week, I came into government in 2007 committed to A9 dualling. The Parliament took a decision that stopped me from spending £500 million on A9 dualling: the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the Liberals and the Greens forced me, as a minister in a minority Government, to spend £500 million on the Edinburgh tram project when the Government had made a commitment to spend it on A9 dualling. In the subsequent period—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
Colleagues are muttering, “17 years ago.” If we had been able to proceed with projects at that time, we would have had £500 million at our disposal to dual the A9, which would have helped.
I am a bit perplexed by which projects Mr Mountain did not want us to take forward. Did he not want us to take forward the Queensferry crossing? Did he not want us to take forward the Aberdeen western peripheral route? I see Mr Burnett sitting in the chamber. He will be driving on the Aberdeen western peripheral route, and so will Liam Kerr. Do they not want such projects to be delivered in different parts of the country?
The Parliament needs to have a reasoned debate about the limitations of resources, and we need to have less posturing from the Conservatives.
Families in Temporary Accommodation
To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to end the reported increase in families in the central belt living in temporary accommodation, in light of reports of almost 2,000 children in Glasgow living in unsuitable bed-and-breakfast accommodation in 2024 and more than 4,600 households in Edinburgh projected to be living in temporary accommodation by 2040. (S6F-03507)
Additional investment of £42 million in affordable housing this year has been targeted at the local authorities in the central belt with sustained temporary accommodation pressures. That funding is to increase the supply of social and affordable homes, including properties that are suitable for larger families, through acquisitions and, where appropriate, to bring long-term-empty social homes back into use.
We are providing record funding of more than £14 billion to local authorities in this financial year to deliver a range of services, including homelessness services, and we are introducing new homelessness prevention duties. We are investing more than £90 million in discretionary housing payments to help families to meet their housing costs and to sustain tenancies, and we recently announced measures on rent controls to help to protect tenants and keep people in their homes.
First Minister, a key pillar of your agenda is—rightly—to focus on eradicating child poverty, but how can we do that when 10,000 children are in temporary accommodation and there is a tenfold increase in kids living in bed and breakfasts? Some are telling heartbreaking stories about how they are having to boil eggs in toilet water for their dinner.
The finance secretary promised that, if the Government received additional funding, its number 1 priority would be to reverse the cuts to the affordable housing supply programme. Now that the incoming Labour Government has delivered that additional funding—£1.5 billion this year and £3.4 billion next year—is that still your Government’s top priority, given that the best way of getting those 10,000 children out of poverty is to give them the homes that they desperately need?
Always through the chair, please, Mr Griffin.
Mr Griffin raises a number of very significant and serious issues. I would be the first to accept that the position on homelessness and temporary accommodation is not where I would want it to be at this moment. Mr Griffin and I can probably agree that that is a product of the financial constraints that we have had over the past 14 years from Conservative-led austerity. I welcome, as I did last week, the investment that has been announced by the United Kingdom Government, which will provide us with more scope to address the issues that Mr Griffin puts to me.
My answer to Mr Griffin’s direct question about whether the improvement of the housing situation remains a priority for the Government is yes, it does. I am happy to confirm that. I will be working with the finance secretary during the budget preparation to address that very issue. It was a matter of great regret to the Government that we had to reduce funding for housing because of a very abrupt reduction in spending on financial transactions by the previous Conservative Government. We now have more options available and I give Mr Griffin the assurance that that will be uppermost in our thinking.
However, I come back to the point that I made to Mr Sarwar. If that money is to be spent, there will have to be more people voting for the budget than just my colleagues, so I invite Mr Griffin to encourage some constructive discussion in the Labour Party about how we might make progress on the budget so that we can address the legitimate points that he puts to me.
This Government has had 17 years to fix the problem, but it has failed. A quarter of all households with children have spent a year or more in temporary accommodation and almost 8,000 households in need were not offered temporary accommodation. It is time for action, not words.
The Scottish National Party has failed to turbo boost housebuilding and families are now stuck on accommodation waiting lists. Will the SNP finally tackle the housing emergency, or will that continue to be another ball dropped by the SNP Government?
My goodness, Conservative members of this Parliament have brass necks. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
For 14 of the past 17 years, this Government has railed against the austerity that was inflicted on us by Meghan Gallacher’s Conservative Government. After all the damage that was done in what we all agree was a disastrous period of austerity, and despite that austerity, this Government has built more affordable housing per head of population than in England or Wales. Despite that Conservative Government austerity, we have invested in housing.
Do we have a housing emergency? Yes, we do. Have we built more houses per head of population than in the rest of the United Kingdom? Yes, we have. Are we glad to see the back of the Conservatives and the impediments that they put in our way? Yes, we are, and we will focus on delivering for the people of Scotland.
As the First Minister is aware, temporary accommodation is a problem not only across the central belt. In South Scotland, 354 households are in temporary accommodation in East Lothian and 50 of those include children. Is temporary accommodation adequate housing in line with article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and our own United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024?
That is a slightly more definitive question than I can answer in the chamber today.
However, I can say to Mr Whitfield that there is good evidence of progress in tackling the temporary accommodation issue through some of the action that has been taken on voids. For example, the City of Edinburgh Council has reduced the overall number of voids in its properties by 500—500—to 970. I pay tribute to the City of Edinburgh Council for what it has done.
The Government wants to work constructively with local authorities to ensure that we make as much progress as we can in the short term on reducing the number of voids. We will be happy to discuss those issues with East Lothian Council, Scottish Borders Council or Dumfries and Galloway Council in Mr Whitfield’s region. If we all use the resources, flexibilities and powers that are available to us, we can make an impact on those issues, as the City of Edinburgh Council has demonstrated, and improve the quality of life for families in our country.
We move to general and constituency questions.
University Tuition Fees
Does the First Minister find it concerning that the Labour United Kingdom Government has announced that university tuition fees will rise to £9,535 per year? Michael Marra has hinted that Labour would examine models to reintroduce some form of charges in Scotland and the Tory leader, Russell Findlay, has spoken openly about ending free tuition. Does the First Minister agree that education should always be based on the ability to learn, rather than on the ability to pay?
I agree with Mr Adam on the principle that education should be based on the ability to learn and not on the ability to pay. As a consequence of the policy stance that the Government has taken, record numbers of Scots secure a university place in Scotland and record numbers of Scots from deprived areas secure places at university without having to face the tens of thousands of pounds of debt that the Opposition parties seem determined to saddle them with.
That is what people get from the Scottish National Party Government delivering for the people of Scotland, delivering access to higher education and ensuring that people are not saddled with the debt that they would be saddled with if the tuition fees in other parts of the United Kingdom were applied.
Additional Support Needs (Training and Resources)
My constituent Vicki Tocher’s son, Isaac, is a seven-year-old child who has a brain disorder and autism, which has left him with the developmental age of a one-year-old. At school, Isaac was segregated and became distressed. He was left alone for so long that he banged his head off a wall to the point of injury. Horrifyingly, that happened while he was being watched from behind a closed door by members of staff. The door was kept closed on him when he tried to come out, and staff failed to report to his parents what had happened. That is unacceptable. What will the Scottish Government do to ensure that all schools in Scotland have specific training and resources to make sure that what happened to Isaac never happens again?
I am very concerned at the details that Roz McCall has put to me. The whole question of support for young people with additional support needs in our schools is very clearly set out in guidance. There are no circumstances under which what Roz McCall has recounted should take place, given the guidance that is available to the school system.
I have extensive experience of such issues from my years as education secretary, during which I engaged with Beth Morrison and with one of my constituents who has done significant work in raising awareness about the issues that Roz McCall has put to me. I cannot conceive of a circumstance under which any of the detail that Roz McCall has put on the record would be justifiable under the guidance. I assure her that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is actively engaged on the question in relation to the formulation of further guidance, and we are engaging on some of the questions that arise in that respect in the bill that has been brought forward by Daniel Johnson.
Huntington’s Disease
During this parliamentary session, members from every party have acknowledged that Scotland has a much higher prevalence of Huntington’s disease than the global average, and there is a growing need for specialist Huntington’s disease services to be provided to national health service patients throughout Scotland—especially in North Lanarkshire, where the prevalence is higher still. In light of that, and as the Scottish Huntington’s Association approaches its 35th anniversary and family gathering in Dundee on 9 November, will the Scottish Government meet representatives of the charity to discuss what the Government can do to assist it to deliver on both the call for increased services and its mission of achieving the best possible care and support for everyone who is impacted by Huntington’s disease in Scotland?
I thank Fulton MacGregor for raising an important issue. I recognise that Huntington’s disease is a devastating condition, and I absolutely agree with him that all who are affected should be able to access the best possible care and support.
Through our neurological framework, we have been working hard to improve neurological services across Scotland. My officials previously met the charity to better understand the needs of people with Huntington’s disease. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health will be happy to meet the charity’s representatives to further discuss the provision of Huntington’s care in Scotland, and I will be delighted to encourage the taking forward of dialogue with the Scottish Government neurological conditions team.
Scottish Qualifications Authority (Higher History Review)
Yesterday, the Scottish Qualifications Authority published its review into the collapse in higher history attainment, saying that a poor standard of learner performance accounts for the drop. After marking its own homework, essentially, the SQA has said that there was no problem—despite teachers and pupils saying otherwise. One teacher has said of the review:
“it’s ... a gut punch. It makes liars out of all the teachers who were in that room”.
In 2020, the First Minister presided over an exams fiasco that punished the poorest pupils, and here we have another. How many more exams fiascos is the First Minister happy to oversee before he accepts that his Government’s so-called reforms are nothing more than a rebrand?
The higher history review was published by the Scottish Qualifications Authority. The report was independently reviewed and endorsed by the director of qualifications and assessment at the Welsh Joint Education Committee, which is the largest awarding body in Wales, so there has been no example of anybody marking their own homework. The report has been independently reviewed.
Obviously, this is a matter of distress. I understand the concerns about the performance of young people when they do not get the qualifications that they hoped to achieve. However, what has been undertaken is a thorough and independent review of the concerns, which has been peer reviewed by another awarding body.
Scotch Whisky Duty
I remind members that I am the co-convener of the cross-party group on Scotch whisky. I am deeply concerned about the impact of Labour’s budget on the whisky industry, which is a key sector of Scotland’s economy. The Scotch Whisky Association said:
“This duty increase on Scotch Whisky is a hammer blow, runs counter to the Prime Minister’s commitment to ‘back Scotch producers to the hilt’ and increases the tax discrimination of Scotland’s national drink.”
Does the First Minister share my and the industry’s concerns about the impact of Labour’s budget on the industry?
The chancellor’s decision to raise alcohol duty while reducing draught duty increases the disadvantage that is facing the spirits sector. As Mr MacDonald correctly puts on the record, the Scotch whisky industry plays a vital role in our economy and supports tens of thousands of high-value jobs, especially in our rural and island regions. I therefore agree with the concerns expressed by Mr MacDonald. Last week, I set out alternative taxation proposals that the United Kingdom Government could have made to avoid tax increases of that nature.
Yesterday, I was delighted to visit the Scotch Whisky Experience in Edinburgh to hear more about the jobs that the industry supports and the formidable impact that it has on the Scottish economy in many localities. The changes that have been made by the UK Government are a matter of concern.
Prostate Cancer Screening
I am sure that the First Minister will join me in commending Scotland’s greatest ever Olympian, Sir Chris Hoy, and the way in which he has faced devastating news with such courage and strength. [Applause.]
This week, Sir Chris called for more and earlier screening of prostate cancer. The United Kingdom Government has said that it will review the screening programme in England. Will the Scottish Government also conduct a review of prostate-specific antigen testing to try to detect more prostate cancers earlier and improve the outcomes for many men?
I am happy to associate myself with the remarks made by Douglas Lumsden. During his sporting career, Sir Chris Hoy demonstrated absolute and total courage and dedication to what he was doing. In facing up to what he is facing now, he is demonstrating courage and dedication to achieving all that he hopes to achieve. I commend him unreservedly for all that he has done. I wish him and his wife well with their diagnoses, and I send their family all good wishes at this challenging time.
The policy point that Sir Chris Hoy makes about prostate screening is very important. We need to do all that we can. We must constantly challenge whether the testing regime is adequate and appropriate, so the Government will take forward the priority that Mr Lumsden has put to me. I am grateful to Sir Chris Hoy for putting such impetus behind the requirement to do so.
National Insurance
The Labour United Kingdom Government’s decision to increase national insurance contributions could have a substantial financial impact on Scotland’s public sector, potentially costing our public services hundreds of millions of pounds, and on the third sector, costing as much as £75 million. [Interruption.]
Let us hear the member.
It is vital that the UK Government provides clarity as a priority about whether Scotland will receive additional funding to cover the cost of the tax rise. Will the First Minister provide an update on the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the UK Government in that regard?
The finance secretary has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this important issue, because we need clarity for our own budgeting purposes about what compensatory effects will be allocated to public funds to deal with the increased costs that will arise from the increase in the employers’ national insurance contribution. That will apply to clearly identifiable public service organisations, but there is also a question about whether it will apply to organisations that are not classified as being in the public sector but provide public services, such as care providers, third sector organisations or, further afield, universities and colleges into the bargain.
There is significant uncertainty about whether that will be adequately and properly covered in the budget, and that will be the subject of detailed discussions between the Scottish Government and the UK Government as we proceed with our budget steps.
Adapted Housing
My constituent Andrea cares for her daughters, who are full-time wheelchair users. Her home is not large enough for wheelchairs or for the specialised bed that has been recommended by her daughters’ physiotherapist. Andrea has applied for adapted housing but, despite her daughters living in pain, there are not enough suitable homes, so they are stuck on a waiting list. Will the First Minister look into my constituent’s case? Does he recognise that the severe shortage of social housing for disabled people means that Andrea’s case will be far from unique?
If Mr Choudhury provides me with the details, I will certainly have a look at that case. The provision of such accommodation is obviously a decision for local authorities, and I cannot intervene in decisions by local authorities on the allocation of housing: I would be acting inappropriately if I did so.
I would make two substantive points in response to Mr Choudhury’s question. First, as part of our investment programme in housing, we need to work to ensure that our housing stock reflects the needs of the population, so accommodation that is suitable for wheelchair use is important.
Secondly, I had a discussion this morning with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the provision of funding for adaptations in housing to make it more suitable for the needs of individuals, allowing them to be sustained in their own homes. Those issues will be considered as part of the budget process. I look forward to engaging with the Labour Party on how we might be able to take forward some of those priorities—which will happen only if there are enough votes in Parliament to support the Government’s budget.
That concludes First Minister’s questions.
12:51 Meeting suspended.Air ais
Remembrance DayAir adhart
North Lanarkshire School Bus Campaign